How v Greek
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 November 1864 |
| Date | 14 November 1864 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 159 E.R. 583
Exchequer Division
S. C. 34 L J. Ex. 4, 10 Jur. (N. S.) 1187; 13 W. R. 80, 11 L T. 315
In FCeveutie Cases Gusts know the Eveitt airless otherwise ordered. The Attorney General inquired whether, in revenue cases, the matter of costs must be expressly mentioned 111 every instance, or whether they followed the event as in other cases. He referred to the Stamp Act, 53 Geo. 3, c 10s, (391] s 24, the Succession Ditty Act, 16 & 17 Vict. c. 51, s. 9, and the Queen's Remembrancer's Act, 22 23 Vict c. 21, s. 21. Per Curiam I future, when decrees are pronounced for the Crown or defendant, in cases within the Inland Revenue Department, the costs will follow the event unless otherwise of dered. How v Nov. 14, 1864 ùWhere tenant for life and rema,inderman are parties to an indenture whereby they (so far as they legally can and may according only to their respective estates and interest) demise their estate for a term of years, and the lessee enters into possession, the tenant for life may sue him for breach of covenant, although the indenture has not been executed by the remainclennen. [S. C. 34 L J. Ex. 4 , 10 Jur. (N. S.) 11.87 ; 13 W. R. 80 , 11 L T. 315 Declaration. That by an indenture dated the 24th December, 1851, and expressed to be wade between the plaintiff of the first part, Waal Yeo of the second part, and the defendant of the third part . It was witnessed that the plaintiff and W. Yeo (so far only as they legally could or might according only to their respective estates and interests) demised to the defendant a messuage, tenement, farm, tkce , for term of fourteen years, computed from the 25th of March then last past, and the defendant did, by the said deed, covenant with the plaintiff and his assigns that he, the defendant, his executors and assigns, should and would, from time to time and at all times during the term, at their own cost wen zwd sAcientiy repair, &c the demised premises, and in such repair yield up the demised premises unto the plaintiff in case he should be alive, or in the event of his death to W. Yeo, his heirs and assigns, at the end of the term, Averments. That the defendant entered upon the demised premises under the indenture and was possessed thereof for the term, acid everything has been done and happened to entitle the plaintiff to have the cove-[392]nant performed. Breach : that the defendant has not repaired the demised premises, &c. Plea. That at the time of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doody v Nolan
...3 Ex. 4. Swatman v. AmblerENR 8 Ex. 72. Wood v. The Governor and Company of the Copper Miners in EnglandENR 14 C. B. 428. How v. GreekENR 3 H. & C. 391. Boyle v. MonkUNK 7 Ir. C. L. R. 279. Bowes v. CrollENR 6 E. & B. 255. Lloyd v. CrispeENR 5 Taunt. 249. Wilkinson v. Lloyd 7 Q. B. 27. Mear......
-
Babington v O'Connor
...and JOHNSON, J. (1886 H. No. 467.) BABINGTON and O'CONNOR Cooch v. Goodman 2 Q. B. 580. Pistor v. CaterENR 9 M. & W. 315. How v. GreekENR 3 H. & C. 391. Toler v. SlaterELR L. R. 3 Q. B. 42. Evans v. GreyUNK 9 L. R. Ir. 539. Walton v. WaterhouseENR 2 Wms. Saund. 826. Pitman v. WoodburyENR 3 ......